Judge says Google can be held liable in Street View wi-fi security debacle

It's a good thing for Google that have all of the money in the world. A federal judge has announced that the Silicon Valley giant can be sued for any damages related to the data grabbed by its Street View cars. As you may recall, earlier this year, it was determined that when the mapping machines passed by areas with unsecured WiFi networks, the hardware mounted on top of the roofs was inadvertently able to snag passwords, emails and a whole host of other information that was unknowingly ripe for the picking.

According to Wired, Google is going on the defensive and claims that unsecured WiFi networks are akin to radio communications. Anyone can grab a radio signal out there, and Google believes grabbing onto an open network is similar. Google has also stated that it was initially unaware of the data being snatched up by its roving fleet.

The implications from this case could prove very interesting for both Google and anyone using an unsecured WiFi network. We'll bring you updates as the story develops, and we'll be sure to change the password on the Autoblog router. (ProTip: Don't go with #12345, even if it matches the combination on your luggage).

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.

If users decide not to secure their own network, nobody else can be held accountable much less liable. Google did nothing more than any other person could do driving down the street. It's called Wardriving, get over it. I'm willing to bet a good percentage of the people who are crying foul over this have all their email with Google anyway.

Part of the issue is that the AVERAGE person doesn't even know there IS such a thing as wifi password protection. Further, when someone's OWN ISP posts the instructions for the WRONG model/version of the cable modem they've just installed, it can be a challenge, to say the least.
I think what people are failing to realize here is that there was NO PURPOSE for google to be sniffing wifi. The car's purpose was to take pictures of the roads, NOT to PULL AND RECORD private citizen's information. THAT is the heart of the case.

Here's another way to look at it: how would you all feel if it were a U.S. government vehicle pulling your data? I'd be willing to bet that the vast majority of the people who think it's ok to swipe someone else's data would have a change of heart.

Ya know guys, just because there is a CAR involved in a story, doesn't necessarily mean its really car related news!
I could see Engadget covering this issue... not so much AB.
I'm waiting for AB to cover the story that Porsche Design came out with a new HDD or SSD case.

"Google is going on the defensive and claims that unsecured WiFi networks are akin to radio communications."
Well, that's because that is exactly what WiFi is, a wireless radio signal broadcast. If I am listening to an internet streaming audio station via WiFi, the analogy is doubly reinforced. If I'm using bluetooth to my computer using WiFi with WiMax to the internet, listening to the radio, they're ALL radio broadcasts.

[blocked]

Bad analogy. They lost because the signal is encrypted and they were using equipment to break that encryption. If you want to use the satellite signal analogy, it would be more like free-to-air signals. It is perfectly legal to pick up satellite feeds that are not encrypted (there is a whole hobby devoted to finding these signals). It should be the same with WiFi. If you are broadcasting an unencrypted and unsecured signal, then you have to expect that anyone can can pick up and read the contents of that signal. It should only be illegal to read the contents of the signal if you are doing so by hacking the encryption or breaking the passwords.